Faith's Participation in EvC

You are correct in that those are all great ideas.The problem is that they do not correspond to reality given even an ELEMENTARY UNDERSTANDING of the facts. Being that you more than amply demonstrated that you have absolutly no idea how sedimentation works and have admitted as much that you don't care to learn, I find this to be an incredible statement. The most you have ever done is proclaim about how "IMPOSSIBLE" it all "looks". Can Genetic Loss Increase Diversity? is still waiting for you to go back up your basic assumption.You DO bring up good questions. But you do NOT follow through.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

OMni declared it off topic a few pages back.

Sorry Faith but the super-genome has been falsified whether you are honest enough to admit it or not. See Message 1

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think Faith has several severe problems1) Bias - she doesn't really apply critical thinking to her own ideas and has an exaggerated idea of their value. She evaluates arguments more on whether she likes the conclusions than on their merits.2) Lack of knowledge should not be used as an excuse for not looking at evidence that contradicts her views. If she doesn't know enough to understand the evidence then she doesn't know enough to reliably come to a conclusion.3) She has to understand that science does not accept religious beliefs as fact, or an adequate reason to reject conclusions that have been well established on the basis of empirical evidence. Carbon dating is solid science - so is evolution (even if many details may be revised).4) If she wants to argue about what science should and should not include she needs some basis more than asserting that her beliefs are "facts". By Popper's standards the Flood has been falsified and should be rejected. By Lakatos' standards Flood geology is a degenerate research program that should be abandoned. The only reason for continuing with it is a religious dogma held in spite of the evidence. That is fundamentally anti-scientific.I don't like the idea of banning anyone, but Faith hss in the past asked to be banned from the science fora. If she asks again then I see no reason not to grant the request. On the other hand if she makes a good-faith effort to improve and deal with her problems then she shoould be permitted to stay.

There is no need to ban Faith from the science fora, she is certainly capable of simply not posting there. Banning her from that side will be used by her as as a crutch, much as she uses Original Sin and the Fall.The facts are that she is not capable (and this is not her fault, the YEC/Biblical Creation/Biblical Flood concepts cannot be defended scientifically, they are simply wrong) of debating under the rules that science imposes. That does not mean that she should be prevented from trying.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

There is no need to ban Faith from the science fora, she is certainly capable of simply not posting there. Banning her from that side will be used by her as as a crutch, much as she uses Original Sin and the Fall.

---

Before she has argued that she is not capable of restraining herself. If she admits that she is not up to it then she cannot honestly use it as a crutch. Not that that will stop her.

Thanks, GDR. I just now saw your post. Appreciate the support. From you and from others as well. But the hostility faction, and the aggressive reiteration as if they were established facts of some of the arguments I feel I've answered time and time again, take the wind out of me. How can I continue to post freely with that much against me?But I know I go through these states of discouragement and get a second wind anyway, so it's hard to predict.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Omni did not claim this line of discussion as off-topic. This is not true.Here is Omni's post which is certainly worth a reread Message 121. Omni restated my line of questioning.If you are so sensitive to off-topic discussion why did you take the diversion, I stupidly triggered, and run with it. I am beginning to understand your methods and they are not very Christian.Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

Don't mention it. I'd happily do it again in the same words. Take heart, Faith. You are accomplishing more good here than you know.For one thing, all you have to do is rhyme all this self-pity to have a great start on a new opera libretto. (The best melodies are for martyred divas.)But would you mind satisfying my curiosity about something?Is it possible--I'm not saying likely, mind you, I'm saying maybe just possible--that in any way or at any time you might possibly have played the smallest part in contributing to your own social problems?I'm just wondering. I've never seen you acknowledge that possibility. Other people do it but never you.It may be that at bottom your difficulty is not really an evo-creo thing. It might have more to do with the understandings people have with each other, with their willingness to supply requested information and listen in good faith and try to understand, and with their expectation that this effort will be reciprocated. It might have something to do with their feelings of betrayal when a contract they thought was mutual is not honored, or even acknowledged.Just a suggestion. Something to consider.Another question. You mention a feeling of having so much 'against' you that it seems pointless to post the same things day after day. Have you given serious consideration to every reason you might be feeling this way?_

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I would just like to point out that this can go both ways and really is par for the course for this debate. I learned awhile back not to get too frustrated having to revisit, reexplain, resupport, etc my arguments.I just wanted to let you know that I understand where you are coming from. Putting myself in your shoes I can see how it can be frustrating if you think you have adequatly answered someones challange. Part of the debate though is the back and forth that comes from further challanging the adequacy of those answers.I don't expect the things I say to be taken as adequate. I expect/hope for someone to stand up and challange me even if it is the 10th time I have tried to explain something.Now put yourself in one of our shoes. Imagine trying to explain some of the elementary points of a science that YOU KNOW are crucial to the discussion to someone who refuses to listen with the excuse that it is too technical or not relevant.Yes there are sometimes that I feel some people don't quite listen to your points. But you have to agree there are many times where you are as equally and frustratingly dismissive.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

1) That would certainly rule you out from any science debate
2) what about those of us who enter these debates to ask questions? should we not be allowed to take part
3)Should debate in the biblical fora similarly be restricted to those who have passed a bible study 'test'?

This is a good example of what I find so objectionable. Though I've laid out my criticisms in detail and with evidence, instead of offering counterarguments with counter-evidence you make general declarations about how this is just so untrue and so unfair and so overwhelming that how can you be expected to counter it.You're received a lot of support in these discussions, and I think you deserve it because there is a lot to your credit, but if you refuse to accept criticism and refuse to perform any self-examination of your approach to discussion and refuse to accept much if any responsibility for your behavior here, and if because of this you continue to contribute in the same manner, then I will probably continue to object to your presence here.I should mention something else unrelated. Schraf said you only begin regular participation in 2005. I'm sure that's wrong, though your message database records no messages in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. But my vague recollection is that you began contributing in earnest in 2003. Does that sound right to you? Anyway, your message history will be fixed when the threads move into the database, though I don't know when that will happen.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Schraf is correct. I signed on in 2001 but only posted a few messages then, and did not post again for about three years. I started posting regularly in February of 2005.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A response to one of your pieces of evidence regarding faiths behaviour. I'm sure I've heard Faith give it this, that and the other way. And that more than once. It maybe the root of the problem and not hers alone but something which affects both sides.http://EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC -->EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC

Probably on occasion. I don't know about "many." But I'm one against dozens here and when people "don't quite listen to my points" that can mean dozens not listening, and answering with something completely nonsensical and aggressively so. The effect of a barrage of nonsense posts against me or hostile nonsense posts is probably not something you can identify with.